Former Ala. Governor Turns Tables on Justice Department

Siegelman Connects His Case to Accusations of Interference

By Carrie Johnson

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, April 13, 2008



The successful criminal prosecution of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman (D) has become tangled in political charges and countercharges that reflect contrasting views about the independence of the Justice Department.

In the two weeks since his release from prison pending an appeal, Siegelman has sharply increased the volume of his assertions that he was railroaded. He says that Karl Rove, who was a White House adviser, targeted him for prosecution to ensure he did not win reelection to the governor's office and displace a Republican there.

Siegelman is seizing on a theme that is newly popular with politically connected defendants: turning the tables on a Justice Department vulnerable to accusations of interference because of missteps last year under then-Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.

An appeals court panel in Atlanta will decide whether Siegelman, the governor from 1999 to 2003, should win a new trial because of what he contends are faulty jury instructions underpinning his 2006 conviction on bribery, conspiracy, mail fraud and obstruction charges.

Yet Siegelman has not petitioned the court to hear his allegations of political tampering, choosing instead to make them on television programs and in newspapers and magazines. He asserts that Rove, two Republican U.S. attorneys, the son of his successor as governor, career prosecutors and former leaders of the Justice Department's public integrity unit conspired to manufacture a case and thwart Siegelman's ambitions to return to the governor's mansion.

Rove denies the assertions and derides the evidence offered by his accusers as vague and scanty. Federal prosecutors respond that they will argue in the courtroom, not in the court of public opinion.

Siegelman's assertions have attracted the attention of the House Judiciary Committee, which has launched an investigation into Justice Department actions under President Bush. But Siegelman acknowledges that he has no specific evidence tying his fate to White House political interference. "We don't have the knife with Karl Rove's fingerprints all over it, but we've got the glove, and the glove fits," Siegelman said in a telephone interview.

In arguing his case, Siegelman relies heavily on the sworn account of a lawyer with GOP ties who said she overheard state party officials plotting against Siegelman in a conference call on the same day in November 2002 when Siegelman conceded that Republican Bob Riley had won the gubernatorial election.

That lawyer, Dana Jill Simpson, said officials told her Rove would "take care of" Siegelman by talking to Justice Department officials in Washington overseeing an existing criminal investigation of him.

Two of the men who allegedly took part in that call, Terry Butts, a lawyer for HealthSouth founder Richard M. Scrushy, and Rob Riley, the son of the state's current governor, submitted affidavits last year saying they did not remember any such call and did not exert political influence in the investigation.

The other alleged participant, Bill Canary, a Republican campaign consultant who is the husband of the U.S. attorney in Montgomery, has told reporters he has "no recollection" of the call and did not intervene in Justice Department decision-making or discuss Siegelman's case with the White House.

Simpson is represented by Joseph Sandler, a former general counsel to the Democratic National Committee. He did not return calls.

Siegelman's assertions come as the Justice Department is vulnerable to allegations of politically tainted actions, given the departure last year of Gonzales and several of his top aides amid probes of White House interference in personnel matters. Puerto Rico's Democratic governor, after being indicted last month for allegedly violating campaign finance laws, has similarly accused prosecutors of being motivated by political considerations.

In response to the Siegelman accusations, Peter Carr, a Justice Department spokesman, said, "This case was brought by career prosecutors . . . based on the law and the evidence alone." Carr added that "after considering that evidence -- which is a matter of public record -- a jury of Mr. Siegelman's peers found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of federal funds bribery, conspiracy to commit mail fraud, honest services mail fraud and obstruction of justice."

Prosecutors note that the Justice Department has targeted more than a dozen high-profile Republicans in Congress and the executive branch in public corruption prosecutions during the Bush administration, including former California lawmaker Randall "Duke" Cunningham and disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a Rove ally.

Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, said that Rove "does not recall" ever meeting Simpson and "simply never had a conversation about targeting Siegelman. He didn't talk to anybody in the White House about it. He didn't talk to anybody in the Justice Department about it. . . . He had no role whatsoever in seeking the indictment."

Some independent groups have been wary of taking sides.

Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonprofit group that focuses on issues of government corruption and White House influence, said the allegations are murky and may merit further inquiry from the courts or Congress.

"It seems like something bad may have happened, but it also seems like Siegelman may have done something wrong," Sloan said. "He may not be a total innocent, but that doesn't mean that what appears to have happened is okay."

During an eight-week trial in 2006, prosecutors alleged that, while serving as governor, Siegelman steered a seat on a key hospital board to health-care executive Scrushy, in exchange for $500,000 in donations to a state education lottery that Siegelman had embraced.

Siegelman's lawyers have blamed the jury's decision on poor instructions from the judge. Legal experts say the fact that the appeals court released Siegelman before even hearing his argument could signal that the court may order a retrial.

"I'm not sure we can learn anything more until some folks from the White House or Justice Department loosen up on this and agree to testify or at least be interviewed," said G. Douglas Jones, a Democrat and former U.S. attorney who is advising Siegelman.

Among other issues, Jones wants more information on what he says a career prosecutor in Montgomery told him was a "top to bottom" review of the case conducted by Justice Department officials in Washington in December 2004, when Jones said the probe of Siegelman was stalled. Shortly after Jones heard about the review, he said, government investigators began issuing new subpoenas for witnesses and documents.

Former prosecutors say there is a less sinister explanation for those events. Public corruption cases involving lawyers from the Justice Department routinely undergo a review by career prosecutors in Washington, in which evidence and legal theories are tested. It is not unusual, the lawyers said, for investigators to seek additional or different evidence after such a meeting, to bolster the case before they seek an indictment.

In the interview, Siegelman pointed to what he called suspicious timing of the charges against him, beginning with a first, failed federal fraud case in 2004 on what he says was the final day such charges could be filed. A second indictment was returned in May 2005 and unsealed that October, nine months after Siegelman announced he would run against Riley the following year. His trial began in May 2006, one month before Alabama's Democratic primary, which he lost.

Key lawmakers, including Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), have asked Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey during questioning at oversight hearings to reopen the case. But Mukasey has so far responded that he will not consider such a step until the appeals process ends.

Last month, Mukasey issued an internal memo reminding prosecutors of their responsibility to "safeguard" the Justice Department's reputation. "Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party," Mukasey wrote.

Assertions of political motivation, however, could grow louder as the presidential election approaches and the end of the Bush administration nears. Federal prosecutors have made public corruption among their top priorities, and grand jury investigations of lawmakers including former Senate Appropriations Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and House Appropriations panel member Alan B. Mollohan (D-W.Va.) could be resolved by the end of the year.

Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.

© 2008 The Washington Post Company